...or whe n a musician says he/she doesn't intend to learn ANY instrument, ANY theory, then I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking them seriously.

As I recall* Bach never studied music theory—never read Fuxx etc. He learned by playing the works of others and absorbed their meanings, syntax, etc. Thus I find dubious any criticism of those who would create music without learning theory. There are many paths to truth. And if someone is on a false path time will winnow it out soon enough.

*The older I get the more often I am told that everything I know is wrong—especially as it relates to musicology. So the certainty coefficient of this statement is not high._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

I couldn't disagree more Oskar. I think music is entirely a mental thing. I can't be bothered to learn an instrument properly, but I think I'm still entirely valid as a musician. It's not all just about getting air to resonate in tubes nicely you know...

That may be true for music that is purely conceptual, but that is a very, very small fraction of the art. For starters, if music can engender emotion in a listener (and Plato among many others certainly believed it could) then it has physical meaning, as one of the defining characteristics of emotions is their necessary physico/visceral expression. (read Charles Darwin's "The expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals" for an important clue about the nature of spiritual existence and the foundation of the study of emotion.)

Then there is the issue of the relation of music to dance. It appears that the two evolved together*. The impulse to move to a beat is not coincidence; it is in our nature.

The descriptive vocabulary of harmony: “movement,” “tension,” “repose,” etc all express the intuitive understanding that music has physical implication.

It seems to me that you are in the position of making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to give it any credence. I invite you to defend your position.

*Please see my caveat elsewhere about my dated old-fart knowledge base._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

I remember John Cage scoring a peice that was written for radio... a few musicians sat with radios and adjusted stations, volumes, etc. according to the score. Would performing that peice now be illegal considering this legal revision and modern airwaves? If so, who is to tell us that a radio is not an instrument?

Would performing that piece now be illegal considering this legal revision and modern airwaves?

Well, yes, I would assume so if anyone chose to pursue it. That's what I was saying. It's ridiculous. If this decision had been handed down years ago we might have been robbed of some of the most intriguing sonic works of the last few decades. Who got hurt by them? And I suppose technically, depending on what was included in those broadcasts that got snatched, recordings of those works by Cage et al are possibly in violation.

I remember John Cage scoring a peice that was written for radio... a few musicians sat with radios and adjusted stations, volumes, etc. according to the score. Would performing that peice now be illegal considering this legal revision and modern airwaves? If so, who is to tell us that a radio is not an instrument?

but i think it is possible that john cage's extensive knowloedge of conventional instruments may have informed his ability to deconstruct traditional instrumentation_________________ Spiral Recordings

I get the feeling that this is a bit like Jean Genet - "Property is theft." A very facile statement, I find.

Genet's real problem was that he spent more time writing about sex than practicing it--and it's clear he needed a lot of practice.--but simians are like that.

_________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

Then there is the issue of the relation of music to dance. It appears that the two evolved together. The impulse to move to a beat is not coincidence; it is in our nature.

Indeed. We mentally interpret the sound around us, and on mentally recognising certain patterns, partly through innate instinct and partly through prior learning, the brain produces feelings of wanting to boogie. Notice that many other creatures seem to lack something which prevents them from dancing in response to music. Birds don't do it. Bees don't do it.* Even educated fleas don't do it. Some faculty or other is absent. Mental. Physical. Hmmm.

bachus wrote:

The descriptive vocabulary of harmony: “movement,” “tension,” “repose,” etc all express the intuitive understanding that music has physical implication.

This proves nothing. Movement and physical space are used in metaphors for almost anything, including wholly mental phenomena. If we are happy, we are in 'a good space'. The mind 'races'. Does the use of a physical metaphor mean that thinking is physical rather than mental?

bachus wrote:

It seems to me that you are in the position of making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to give it any credence.

Not an extraordinary claim to me, sir. Extraordinary evidence? Bachus, this is electro-music.com, not Nature.

bachus wrote:

I invite you to defend your position.

No need, I'm not shy. But in keeping with the established etiquette, I humbly await your riposte.

*Well, not in response to music, unless my young-fart knowledge base is not sufficiently developed._________________This message was brought to you from Beyond The Grave.

Interesting thing to bring up, Radio Music. Is having 10 people "on stage" tuning radios more theft than the local pub having the TV on while they sell food and drink? I would think a clever attorney could defend a suit against Radio Music. The performance is using what is freely "in the air", at that moment. There is no sampling or recording. The art is in tuning the radios and the harmonies and disonances that naturally occur with multiple stations play at the same time.

Do pubs and bars have to pay special royalties to TV networks? If you play a radio station at a place of commerce, do you have to pay a special royalty?

In New Zealand, APRA collects a fee from all bars and clubs based on the number of cd/cassette machines they have. The proceeds get distributed among the members (mostly song writers etc). I think I might be a member, but I have never seen any money.

...or whe n a musician says he/she doesn't intend to learn ANY instrument, ANY theory, then I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking them seriously.

Wow! That really is an impressively provocative statement!

You have a hard time taking them seriously??

The history of music is full of instrumentalists who had no formal training. I'm sure there are countless, countless examples, but one that springs to mind for me is Stephane Grappelli. Grappelli doesn't contradict your statement, because clearly he learnt to play the fiddle.

But what about people with no formal training in theory? I am sure that there are many people who write outstanding music who couldn't tell a dominant chord from their derriere, and who couldn't give a monkeys.

Would you have a hard time taking them seriously?

I am also sure there are many successful electronic 'musicians' who can't play any instruments - who just rely on their qwerty skills, as you entertainingly put it. Their music may not be to your taste - I don't know - but would you not take them seriously?

Incidentally, are there examples of successful composers who can't play any instruments? I guess the 'academy' system probably means that most composers enrolled as instrumentalists (correct me if I'm wrong), but are there exceptions?

_________________This message was brought to you from Beyond The Grave.

It seems to me that you are in the position of making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to give it any credence.

.... Extraordinary evidence? Bachus, this is electro-music.com, not Nature.

This is a valid criticism. It was a poor choice of words on my part and in consideration thereof I would change the word "evidence" to "support."_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

A sensible amendment there, Bachus. Wars have been fought over this kind of semantic misunderstanding in the past.

Is your avatar the ear of a horse, which I assume since I remember your previous avatar was a horse, or of a cow, which to me it more closely resembles?_________________This message was brought to you from Beyond The Grave.

A sensible amendment there, Bachus. Wars have been fought over this kind of semantic misunderstanding in the past.

Is your avatar the ear of a horse, which I assume since I remember your previous avatar was a horse, or of a cow, which to me it more closely resembles?

I don't do wars.

And Lordy, You sure aint no country boy! That's IS a bovine, son. Just look at that magnificent ear.!_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

On balance, I think unremitting violence, death on a epic scale, abuse of power, torture, rape, starvation, displacement, the break-up of family units and genocide are all shit. So I'm with you there, Mr Bachus.

So what's with the horses and cows and stuff? Are you Old MacDonald? _________________This message was brought to you from Beyond The Grave.

On balance, I think unremitting violence, death on a epic scale, abuse of power, torture, rape, starvation, displacement, the break-up of family units and genocide are all shit.

Me, I find the power of the arched eyebrow is generally sufficient. Sadly, I don't have a WAV for you all to sample. Sorry!_________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

Me, I find the power of the arched eyebrow is generally sufficient. Sadly, I don't have a WAV for you all to sample. Sorry!

Oh please, please come over here and do your work on our electorate. It looks like G. Bush may be reelected if there is not some miracle on the order of loaves and eyebrows. And you know, his is the party of the ultimate anal retentives! Another term and we won’t be able to write our own names with out a licensing agreement. _________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Me, I find the power of the arched eyebrow is generally sufficient. Sadly, I don't have a WAV for you all to sample. Sorry!

Oh please, please come over here and do your work on our electorate. It looks like G. Bush may be reelected if there is not some miracle on the order of loaves and eyebrows. And you know, his is the party of the ultimate anal retentives! Another term and we won’t be able to write our own names with out a licensing agreement.

See, being a teacher I generally deal with primary school kids, and strangely enough, they have a STRONG sense of morals and are therefore easier to manipulate tha your Dubyas and whathaveyou. _________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

Do pubs and bars have to pay special royalties to TV networks? If you play a radio station at a place of commerce, do you have to pay a special royalty?

i believe there was a push by ascap/bmi to enforce licensing for busineses that had broadcast radio on for clients (hair salons was a big one). i think that technically it is required, but not strictly enforced (although i'd be suprised if sports bars and places with significant video installations aren't paying).

The big boys ARE going after the small boys about sampling. A label in UK were effectively closed down recently - their output is small release, 'art' sampled stuff - one album layered all of Shostakovich's symphony's on top of each other for a mightly cacophony. On one CD they got loads of cut-up artists to sample Frankie's 'relax'. EMI (ZTT?) sued the pants off them even though, by their admission, if they sold ALL the copies they would only have broken-even. They were forced to write to all the customers to ask them to post back the CDs, and destroy all stock. OF course no one returned them and they were going for a lot on ebay! I've no idea who this label were. Buy they obviously don't exist now. I think they were asked to pay EMI's legal fees, too. It seems ridiculous - it's like chasing after kiddies for downloading MP3s, or Metallica threatening to sue their fans for downloading illegally. Jesus, as if they're not challenged enough being a Metallica fan

My advice: deny everything and try and pick the most obscure samples you can. They have to a) find out b) be arsed to sue you. If you genuinally try and get permission, though, the MCPS ask for SILLY money (£1000s) to legitimately use a sample. So only the corporate trash like Vanilla Ice, Blue, or the Sugababes actually get to use samples - creatively or not.

On the other foot, when I interviewed Jean-Jacques Perrey - he had not earned any money from re-mixes of his 1970 classic E.V.A. as sampled by Gangstarr, Fat Boy Slim, and others. They didn't ask for permission, and he wasn't with a big label in a position to mount a legal claim. He's not that bothered (of the cringingly dreadful FBS he said 'why not, everyone has to make a living'), and he's made his money through other tracks, but it's pretty disrespectful. He wasn't even credited on the record. That is terrible - like someone trying to claim credit for the amazing sound. The motto to this: death to FBS and his evil, pathetic, tedious 'big beat' sampled music. Actually ,my ex lowned Fat Boy most of the records he sampled like the one he trashes on 'funk soul brother' and the arsehole never even returned his records, or gave him a credit. What an arsehole.

The laws on cover versions are good. You can cover a song and the writer gets 14% (?) of the dealer price. Why can't samples be calculated in a similar way, so perhaps the composer has to declare what % of the song features samples and pay a percentage at the point of manufacture. This would ulitmately mean MORE revenue for songwriters as artists will more willingly declare their samples. Samples are a reinvention, a regeneration of the old music - when used positively.

Creative Commons is a lobby group trying to revolutionise copyright to make it 'some rights reserved'. I think this means you say people can use it for their own non-commercial purposes. I don't know what it means fully,
http://creativecommons.org/

My advice: deny everything and try and pick the most obscure samples you can.

That's good advice. When somebody posts something here and announces it is a remix of another artist, we ask them to remove it, even if it's a link. Some people use samples of other peoples' music as a tribute; a from of respect. I think this is fine, but it is disrespectful not get get permission.

If a musician doesn't want you to reuse their music, then don't do it, unless you hate the music so bad that your sampling is an act of protest. In that case you could look at it as an act of civil disobedience, but you may have to pay extreme consequences._________________--Howard
my music and other stuff

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.